ILNews

Man who fled after hearing not entitled to discharge

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The motion for discharge under Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C) by a man charged in connection with a gun shop burglary in Morgan County was properly denied by the trial court, the Indiana Court of Appeals held Thursday. Much of the delay in bringing him to trial within a year was attributable to the appellant, including his decision to flee after a hearing.

In Scott Speers v. State of Indiana, 55A01-1208-CR-391, Scott Speers was arrested by police on March 11, 2011, after blood found at the crime scene matched his DNA in the CODIS database. But his jury trial didn’t begin until July 17, 2012. In that time frame, Speers filed a motion to continue because his counsel was going to be out of town on the original trial date of Aug. 24, 2011, and then he later indicated he would plead guilty. Speers was also arrested in another county during this time, and then fled after a Dec. 22, 2011, hearing. He was arrested five days later.

The trial had to be continued so Speers could get a new attorney, as his prior attorney would be a witness in his escape case, and the case was moved to a different court. Nearly 480 days elapsed before Speers went to trial, but enough of the delay was attributable to Speers to support the denial of his Rule 4(C) motion, the Court of Appeals affirmed.

The judges also held that the trial court didn’t erroneously admit results of the DNA testing in violation of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment when only DNA analyst Lori James testified. The lab tech who transferred the blood sample from the broken glass in the store to white cloths for testing by James did not testify. Citing Pendergrass v. State, 913 N.E.2d 703, 705 (Ind. 2009), the COA found that James’ testimony regarding the evidence sufficed for Sixth Amendment purposes because she had direct involvement in the testing and analysis of the DNA at issue.

They also rejected his claim that Pendergrass is no longer good law in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s plurality opinion in Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (2012).

Finally, the appeals court held that the direct examination of the lead detective by the state did not present evidence that created an “evidentiary harpoon,” as Speers contended. He sought a mistrial on the basis the state was leaving the jury to speculate how he was developed as a suspect. The state tried to avoid informing the jury of the CODIS match, which would have indicated Speers had a criminal history.

The trial court correctly denied the motion for mistrial, the judges ruled, because the question by the state and the detective’s response did not inject inadmissible evidence into the trial, and it was simply used by the state as a transition from testimony regarding the initial suspect to the detective’s subsequent investigation of Speers.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT